Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷

The catechism is not infallible, none of them.  The above is the biggest problem with the catechism - it falsely proposes a theological "what if" scenario as actual doctrine, when the above scenario not required to be believed, has never been formally taught by any council (except the fallible V2) and it is confusing as hell...which is doctrinal and which is where both Scripture and Councils say that unbaptized persons go if they die.
.
The idea that a person goes through life without knowing the Christ or the Gospel AND it is not their fault is a condemned error.  Firstly, because it is Scriptural in the Gospel of St John that Christ, the Word, "enlightens EVERY man who comes into the world".  Secondly, it is Scriptural that God "wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth."  Thirdly, Christ created the Church to "go and preach the Gospel to all nations".
.
To assert that a person lived his entire life and does not know about God is to deny God's Divine Providence.  If they know about God, then God will enlighten them about the Church, if they follow the natural law.  If they are of bad will, then they will not be given graces to know about spiritual things, because God does not "cast pearls before swine".  If they are ignorant of the Church, then it is their fault, because ignorance is a punishment for sin. 
.
To deny that a "good and sincere" person lived their whole life without hearing of the Gospel and the Church, is to deny that God gives all men a chance at salvation.  It is to deny Scripture.  It is utter heresy and modernism.  Anathema!

Ladislaus is a misinformed slanderer who deserves to be on permanent ignore. Go troll somewhere else. He's not interested in a conversation, but only in trolling and flaming.

Bishop Fellay: "In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord."

That's their usual out, the instrumental causality phrase.  This allows anyone at all to be saved, regardless of any subjective requirements, provided objectively the instrumental causality of Our Lord is there.  It's completely disingenuous.  And I'll get back to this later.  They use it to pretend that they uphold EENS when they actually do not.

That's their usual out, the instrumental causality phrase.  This allows anyone at all to be saved, regardless of any subjective requirements, provided objectively the instrumental causality of Our Lord is there.  It's completely disingenuous.  And I'll get back to this later.  They use it to pretend that they uphold EENS when they actually do not.

What's odious about this is it destroys the unity and synergism of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost working together to save all of the elect, and effectively takes the Son out of the work of salvation - and denies it does so by the theological lip service of the Son as the "instrumental causality." 

The Father gives His to the Son, the Son saves them by His Holy Passion, death and resurrection, and the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ through faith and the sacraments, utilizing the Church as the agency. When faith is in Christ, explicitly, the Son's role in salvation is present personally and individually in the very act of believing of those who are saved. Not to get sidetracked here, but a proper understanding of election and predestination shows the role of the Father in all of this: the choosing of the elect and the giving them to Christ - whom Christ keeps in His bosom and redeems by His Precious Blood, which is then applied by the Holy Ghost to the elect, like the blood of the lamb on the doorposts in the Passover. 

The believing Jєω and Muslim, if saved, is saved by only 2 of the 3 persons of the Trinity potentially at work: faith in God the Father, and the Spirit at work in contrition and repentance. In light of that, Christ is brought in by the liberal theologians as the "instrumental cause" in the background as it were, sort of a deus ex machina to keep salvation as the work of all 3 persons of the Trinity, when Christ's "not on the stage" (in the consciousness of the repentant believer) when justification is taking place.

Yes, "completely disengenuous" and a makeshift attempt to preserve Christ, the Son, in salvation, in a world where saying makes it so - a world where the correspondence between truth (represented in words) and reality is gone. 

First, let's hear the true doctrine on the necessity of the Catholic Faith stated by Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguouri, "“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11)" https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/

The Creed of St. Athanasius says, Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. [He therefore who will be saved, let him think thus on the Trinity] from which it clearly follows, that explicit Catholic faith in the Holy Trinity is a necessary means of salvation. God can supply this through extraordinary means, such as sending an Angel to a pagan to teach him the Catholic Faith, that he may be saved.


From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm approved by a Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in the 19th century. See: "Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges.
with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith" with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from the Church.

Second, onto Bishop Fellay. Last Tradhican, if you ask His Excellency Bishop +Fellay (or asked His Grace Archbishop Marcel +Lefebvre), they would probably tell you, "I believe as St. Augustine/St. Thomas/St. Alphonsus and the Church believes and teaches". There has been some confusion on the issue because some questions, even pre-Vatican II, were not definitively closed by the Magisterium. More recently, the Magisterium has declared St. Augustine's teaching (that a justified catechumen will also receive Water Baptism before death) adopted by St. Benedict's Centre to be an acceptable theological position. I agree with St. Augustine and the SBC on this one.

Let's look at Bishop Fellay's statement above, H.E. says (1) it is heretical to say Jєωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord, (2) refers to a theological docuмent (which Church authorities have clarified is non-Magisterial, but theological speculation) that claims Jєωs can be saved by implicit faith in Christ as expressly heretical. That is why I am confident Bishop Fellay does not believe in implicit faith, but admits the requirement for explicit faith in Christ for salvation, even for the hypothetical Hindu in Tibet, though it is not clear. If someone can ask Bishop Fellay for clarification, either by mail, or by attending H.E.'s next conference and askign personally, that would be helpful for all of us. If Bishop Fellay made a mistake, H.E. surely did so in good faith, but I'm inclined to doubt H.E. made one.

This is the statement of the modern liberal theologians. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-Jєωs-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html Imho, paras 17 and 36 are the most problematic: "While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel." (p.17). Note that Bishop Fellay outright called this heretical, so it's clear H.E. doesn't agree with this speculation.

Third, the Magisterium's own position. Here, we're not asking what the Magisterium has declared acceptable (we know SBC's theological position has been accepted as such by Rome), but whether the Church Herself has expressly pronounced on the question in a definitive and infallible way in recent times. In Dominus Iesus (Lord Jesus), released in 2000 under Pope John Paul II and the future Pope Benedict XVI, the Magisterium stated, "The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ's revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself:17 “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed”.18 Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”,19 involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.20

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief  in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”,21 then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.22

This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance."

So, Rome Herself, in clearer moments, has said this is an erroneous way of thinking, and thus I see no need to break from Rome at all. But yes, I agree, that this is a serious crisis that needs to be fixed. Do you have a solution, Last Tradhican? I think a new ex cathedra definition would be the best, and would help millions know the Truth, that there is no salvation without the explicit knowledge of Christ.

+Fellay is a Pelagian.  He declares that this Hindu can be put into a state of grace and saved merely by conformity with the natural law.

XavierSem, when Fellay was talking about the Jєωs, he was referring to instrumental causality (through or by means of Christ) ... without the necessity for anything other than the "invisible link" he theorizes about in his Hindu discourse.

Xavier,

Bishop Fellay: "And quite recently you have a docuмent published by Cardinal Koch on relations with the Jєωs (Docuмent of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jєωs, December 10, 2015). It is a terrible docuмent, completely heretical, which claims that the Jєωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jєωs:
“There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.” But then what game are they playing? They teach without teaching. This causes confusion everywhere. It is a new attitude"

Talk about playing games! It's the same game all these guys play that Bishop Fellay is playing. Notice the objection of the bishop to the "claims that the Jєωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord." It's the "instrumental causality" thing noted by Ladislaus. All he (Bishop Fellay) needs to say is "there is no salvation without personal belief in Christ," and the whole issue is settled.

This is just more ambiguity, albeit tightened up a bit so that it looks stricter than V2 speak.

So many of these guys, both R & R and Sede, such as Bishop Sanborn, could simply put this matter to rest by asserting the simple necessity for an act of explicit faith in Christ for all who are to be saved. It never comes.

One time I submitted a question to Father Jenkins through the youtube channel What Catholics Believe seeking clarification on the issue of explicit faith in Christ after listening to one of his presentations - and I didn't received a response.

As I said above, if these guys really believed in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ they could easily settle the issue with a simple direct statement. The statement never comes, which creates an adverse inference in my view in light of the ready means of clarification that doesn't come.

DR